Working with

Statutes
Ten Tools of Statutory Interpretations:
1. Wordng
(wordng of the statutory secton beng questoned)
2. Statutory Context / Intent
(Other Statutory Context that mght ndcate the egsatures ntent
- ke other sectons wthn the same statute, sectons headng,
statutes tte and preambe)
3. Hstorca Context / Motvaton
(Events and condtons that mght have motvated the egsature to
act)
4. Announcement Context
(Context created by announcements of pubc pocy n other
statutes and n case aw)
5. Interpretatons by ower or coatera courts
(but f statute has been comprehensvey nterpreted by hgher
courts, ths woud not be needed)
6. Legsatve (enactment) Hstory
(documents and records created durng the course of enactment)
7. Canons of Statutory Constructon
(coecton of maxms)
8. Parae Statutes
(n other |ursdcton)
9. Interpretatons by Admnstratve Agences
(agences charged wth enforcng the statute)
10. Interpretatons by schoars
(recognzed experts n the ed)
Favored Canons of Statutory Construction:
(Schoars have frequenty crtczed many of the canons and few of them
re|ect a, but there are canons whch were never crtczed by them.)
A statute s to be construed n ght of the harm the egsature meant
to remedy.
Statutory words and phrases are to be construed n the context of the
entre statute of whch they are a part.
Statutes on the same sub|ect or n par matera are to be construed
together.
Where possbe, statutes are to be construed so that ther
consttutonaty s preserved.
Pena statutes are to be narrowy construed. (strcty n favor of the
accused and aganst the state)
Statutes n derogaton of the common aw are to be narrowy
construed.
How to Present Statutory Analysis in Writing
Focus on the words! (Because the words are what s to be
nterpreted)
Cruca term or phrase shoud appear, nsde quotaton mark,
when you state the ssue.
"#plain $y editing the statute! (It s our obgaton to te the reader
the rue on whch we rey and t cannot be satsed by |ust quotng.)
e.g. "The term motor vehce when used n ths secton sha ncude
an automobe, automobe truck, automobe wagon, motor cyce, or
any other sef-propeed vehce not desgned for runnng on ras."
|Expaned as| "For the purpose of the Act, a motor vehce s a
conveyance that s sef-propeed, that operates prmary on and, and
that does not run on ras."
%now the di&erences $etween Statutory and Co''on (aw
analysis:
Co''on law - decsons set fundamenta rues; entourage are
decsons expanng specc aspect of the rue or ts appcaton.
Statutory - one or more statutes set fundamenta rues;
entourage are decsons nterpretng those statutes (ncudng
egsatve hstory, nterpretatons by admnstratve agences,
nterpretaton of smar statutes n other |ursdctons, and
commentares by schoars).
Working with
Facts
Types of State'ents:
Conclusion of (aw - ncudes concept of aw.
"At the tme and pace speced n the compant, the defendant
commtted a battery on the panth."
Factual Inference - concuson derved from facts.
"At the tme and pace speced n the compant, the defendant
accdentay struck the panth from behnd wth a stck."
Characteri)ation of Fact - opnon about the fact.
"At the tme and pace speced n the compant, the defendant
brutay struck the panth from behnd wth a stck."
Allegation of Fact
"The panths compant aeges that, at a certan tme and pace, the
defendant struck the panth from behnd wth a stck."
Proof of Allegation
"At tra, the panths prncpa wtness tested that, at the tme and
pace speced n the compant, the defendant struck the panth from
behnd wth a stck."
Conclusion that "vidence Proves Allegation
"At the concuson of the tra, the |ury found that, at the tme and
pace speced n the compant, the defendant struck the panth from
behnd wth a stck."
Pure *FACT+
"At the tme and pace speced n the compant, the defendant struck
the panth from behnd wth a stck."
Identifying ,eter'inative Facts:
Know the Diference!
,eter'inative Facts - essenta and w determne courts decson.
"#planatory Facts - hep make sense out of the stuaton.
Coincidental Facts - no reevance or usefuness; they |ust happen.
-uilding Inferences fro' Facts
Facts may prove or dsprove an aegaton by factua proposton of
nferences.
EXAMPLE
Allegation: |uan caused accdent by runnng a red ght.
"#planatory Fact: Hs 2 chd were argung at the back seat of hs car.
Proven $y:
Generalization 1. People driving with children arguing in the back seat
o the car so!eti!es pa" attention to what is happening in the back
seat.
Generalization #. People who are pa"ing to what is happening in the
back seat o the care are so!eti!es !o!entaril" distracted ro! what
is happening on the road in ront o the!.
Generalization $. People who are !o!entaril" distracted ro! what is
happening on the road in ront o the! so!eti!es enter an
intersection against red light.
Conclusion: Juan entered the intersection against red light.
.ot Proven $y:
Generalization 1. People driving with children arguing in the back seat
are so!eti!es conscious o the presence o children in the car.
Generalization #. People who are conscious o children in their car
so!eti!es drive cautiousl".
Generalization $. People who drive cautiousl" so!eti!es pa" close
attention to the road.
Generalization %. People who pa" close attention to the road
so!eti!es do not enter an intersection against the red light.
Conclusion: Juan did not enter the intersection against the red
light.
Identifying Hidden and /nsupporta$le Factual Assu'ptions
Artcuate generazaton supported by common experence.
e.g. "Peope who move wthout eavng a forwardng address are
usuay tryng to avod detecton."
Check how accurate the generazaton s by:
Addng "except when".
Gvng as many reasonabe excepton as possbe.
e.g. "Peope who move wthout eavng a forwardng address are
usuay tryng to avod detecton,,, except when (1)they smpy forget
to, or (2)when they do not yet know the permanent address to whch
they w be movng, or (3) when they w be movng around for a tme
and w not have a permanent address."